Lector and Theophanes tell us expresly It was indeed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Bishops then in Town whose Authority though it was questioned for the greatest Affairs as appears in the 4th Action of the Council of Chalcedon and the Dispute of Maximus with Pyrrhus yet was often made use of in such occasions as these and was by the Canons of the Church sufficient and obliging till a greater number of Bishops could be persuaded to restore him Till he could get such a Number to do it it was the Duty of Euphemius to acquiess in the Deprivation and to communicate with his Successor and it will be our present Bishops Duty also to doe so when this can be proved to be their Case And indeed I know no other Evidence of his communicating with his Successor but that he did not set up a Communion against him 16. In the Case of Macedonius the Emperour's Rage did somewhat precipitate him he had him forcibly seized and sent immediately into Banishment without so much as the Formality of a Tryal The rather so because he feared the People would not endure it such a Zeal they had for Macedonius and the Cause defended by him Afterwards he bethought himself and got an Assembly that did his business for him They took upon them at the same time the Persons of Witnesses and Accusers and deprived him absent and in exile and when they had done so they notifie the Sentence to him by Bishops and a Presbyter of Cyzicus So Theophanes tells the Story No doubt it must have been a Synod that proceeded after the receiv'd way of Synods in notifying their Sentence by ecclesiastical Persons However our Author says that he communicated with his Intruder Timotheus So he might possibly interpret Macedonius's Exile and submitting to it as he seems to have done that of Euphemius in relation to the Case of Macedonius In this case certainly it neither could have been true nor could he have any good Testimony for him to believe it so When the Bishops came to notifie the Sentence to him Macedonius asked them whether they owned the Council of Chalcedon And when they durst not answer him positively he asked again Whether if the Sabbatians and Macedonians had brought him the like Sentence they would think him obliged to acquiesce in it Is not this a plain Exception against their Authority as Hereticks for not receiving that Council and a Protestation against their Sentence as null and invalid and a disowning any Obligation in Conscience to submit to it And what needed Timotheus to fly into that Rage against the Name and Memory of Macedonius if what our Author says had been true that Macedonius owned any Communion with him Why should this same Timotheus refuse to officiate in any sacred Place till he had first defaced the Pictures if he found any of Macedonius Why should he prosecute Julianus only for being his Friend How came it to pass that when the Emperor sent forth his Edict for subscribing the Condemnation of Macedonius together with the Synodical Letters concerning the Consecration of Timotheus the more constant Adherers to the Council of Chalcedon would subscribe neither of them and even the weaker would not subscribe the Deprivation of Macedonius which notwithstanding in consequence subverted the Succession of Timotheus Why should Timotheus bring up the use of the Nicene Creed more frequently than Macedonius had done purposely to draw odium upon Macedonius if there had been Communion between them as our Author would persuade us What needed then all those Persecutions and Violences against the followers of Macedonius but only to force them to the Communion of Timotheus Why did Juliana as an Assertor of the Council of Chalcedon refuse the Communion of Timotheus if it was not manifest that the difference was such as broke Communion Why should the Praefect of the Studite Monks refuse to receive Consecration from him who had condemned the Council of Chalcedon if it had not been notorious that he had condemned the Council and was therefore an Heretick and of another Communion from them who owned that Council in defence of which Macedonius had been banished He did indeed to please them Anathemize those who had Anathematized that Council but when the Emperor expostulated with him concerning it he pretended to mean his Anathematism against those who received the Council So true he was to his Heresie One would admire whence it was that our Author came by that good Opinion he had of this Timotheus as if he also had been a Catholick and the 3d Catholick Bishop of Constantinople who had been deprived by Anastasius Neither of these things were true nor affirmed by I believe any one good Historian Our MS. Catalogue of Patriarchs by Nicephorus Callistus has either Marginal or Interlineal Censures of the Patriarchs whether Orthodox or Heretical in all likelihood according to the received Opinions of the Time and Church where these Observations were made There in an interlineal Note over the place where he speaks of Timotheus we find him called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is of no great consequence to our purpose whether this Note was from Nicephorus himself or some Constantinopolitane Librarian either way it will shew the received Opinion of the Modern Constantinopolitanes So also in the Iambicks concerning the Patriarchs published before the I Volume of the Byzantine Historians Timotheus is with some Indignation called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which we see how unworthily our present Rhetor expressed himself on this occasion even with reference to the sense of his own Church The only occasion of his Mistakes that I can think of is that he injudiciously followed the Authorities of Flavian of Antioch and Elias of Jerusalem as related by Cyrillus Scythopolitanus his Author and a very good one in these Matters That Author says indeed that those two Patriarchs assented to the Synodical Letters for Timotheus though they would not to the other Letters that came with them concerning the deprivation of Macedonius This I suppose gave him occasion for his good Opinion of Timotheus that those great Men afterwards such Sufferers in the same Cause as yet rejected not his synodical Letters Our Author was very well aware that if they owned the Communion of an Heretical Successor their Examples must have been faulty and could not be pleaded as Precedents by his own Principles and it seems he was not aware how notorious it was that this was indeed the Case of Timotheus But their Behaviour herein was exactly the same with the Behaviour of those whom Theophanes censures as weak so far he is from our Author's Opinion in making it exemplary And it is plain Macedonius and Timotheus differed not only as Rivals of the same See but also as Heads of different Communions How then was it reconcilable to any Principles to own Timotheus without disowning Macedonius Only the receiving Timotheus might as for
Judgment and Opinions of the Persons concerned in these Instances And yet if this Point were gained it would not suffice for our Adversaries purpose For it is farther considerable sixthly That the Instances here collected rise no higher than the Fourth Century and extend no farther than the Greek Church and therefore cannot pretend to argue the Sense of the Catholick Church nor of those Ages which are most to be regarded not onely for their Antiquity but their Integrity also Suppose therefore we should so far gratifie our Adversaries as to give them leave to believe that all was proved that is so much as offered at in this Collection and proved as solidly and as pertinently to their Cause as themselves can either pretend or wish This would certainly be a great Favour indeed the uttermost they can hope for with regard to this Collection yet still they must not pretend by this Collection to one single Instance that may signifie the sense of the Western Church or consequently of the Catholick Church in any one Age Still we are left a liberty for any thing is said here to challenge the Doctrine of the Church as signified by her behaviour at the first and ancientest Instances of Schism as making for us And this we can do with greater Certainty and Evidence than our Adversaries can pretend to in their more Modern Cases 16. We can say that even in the Age of St. Cyprian which is the ancientest we know of that an Antibishop was set up against a Bishop in the same See it is 1st very notorious that they then owned no such Power of the secular Magistrate to deprive Bishops of their purely spiritual Power and that the Church as a Society distinct from the State subsisted on their not owning it even as to a Deprivation of their particular Districts and Jurisdictions It is notorious and as notorious as any one Tradirion of the Catholick Church in those Ages not excepting that of the Canon of the New Testament it self that Christians then and not only then but in all the former Persecutions that had been from the times of the Apostles to that very Age did own themselves bound to adhere to their Bishops when it was notorious withal that those Bishops were set up and maintained against the Consent of the Civil Magistrate It is as notorious also that this adherence of theirs was not only Matter of Fact which is all our Adversaries pretend here but a Duty owned by them as obliging in Conscience and as the result of Principles This appears not only by the unquestionable Sincerity of the Christians of those Ages who were generously influenced by no Considerations but those of Conscience not only by their suffering those severe Penances imposed on them in order to their recovering the Bishop's Communion even when the Magistrate was against him which no other Considerations could recommend but only those of Conscience but from the Principles themselves insisted on in the Reasonings of St. Cyprian Such were these That all hopes of pardon of Sin of the Holy Ghost of Eternal Life on performance of Duty were confined to the visible Communion of the Church that their visible Communion with the Church could not appear but by their visible Communion with the Bishop as the Head of that Church and the Principle of its Vnity that who that Bishop was to whom any particular Person owed his Duty was not then any otherwise distinguishable but by the visible Districts in which themselves lived and to which he was therefore supposed to have a Title whether the Magistrate would or no. It is also as notorious that these Reasonings were not then the sense of private Persons but the received sense of Christians in general and indeed Fundamental to that Catholick Communion which was then maintained where-ever there were Christians Not only every particular Christian of a Diocess did thus assure himself of his Right to Ecclesiastical Privileges by his Communion with the Bishop of that particular District but he was intitled also to Communion with all the other Bishops of the World and consequently with the Catholick Church in general by the communicatory Letters of the Bishop of his own particular District For it was by the mutual Obligation all Bishops of the World had to ratifie the Acts of particular Districts that he who was admitted a Member of one Church was intitled to the Communion of all and that he who was excluded from one was excluded from others also because no other Bishop could justifie his reception of a Christian of another Jurisdiction to his own Communion if he had not the communicatory Letters of his own Bishop Thus it appears that the Obligation even of particular Districts without consent of the Magistrate was then Catholick Doctrine Whence it plainly follows that this Lay-deprivation which is all that can be pretended in the case of our present Bishops is in the Principles of the Catholick Church of St. Cyprian's Age a perfect Nullity and consequently that in regard to Conscience at least our present Bishops are still Bishops and Bishops of those particular Districts as much as ever and the Obligations of the Clergy and Laity in those Districts as obliging to them now as ever 17. This therefore being so that our present Bishops are by the Principles of St. Cyprian's Age as obliging Bishops in Conscience to the Clergy and Laity of their respective Jurisdictions it will thence be as notorious 2dly that the Antibishops of those same Jurisdictions are by the same Principles to be taken for no Bishops at all It is plain that Novatian was disowned as soon as ever it appeared that Cornelius was canonically settled in Fabian's Chair before him and disowned universally so universally that whoever did not disown him was for that very reason disowned himself This is as clear as any particular mentioned in our Adversaries Collection But we do not satisfie our selves with that It is also further as notorious that he was disowned by Principles obliging them in Conscience to disown him and those again not private Opinions but Principles also Fundamental to the Correspondence then maintained in the whole Catholick Church as the other were that we mentioned under the former Head It was then a Principle that Secundus was Nullus which will as much invalidate the Consecrations of the present Antibishops as it did that of Novatian This is a Principle so universally acknowledged wherever there can be but one that it needs no Authorities to recommend it No Man can convey the same thing twice and therefore if there be two Bonds for the same thing to several Persons the 2 d can never be thought obliging but by supposing the Invalidity of the 1 st So also in all Monarchichal Districts none can suppose an Antimonarch's Title good till he has shewn that the first Monarch's Title is not so Thus this Principle needed no Authority and yet it had all the Authority of the whole
even a Precedent for his own Case Good Men indeed have been willing rather to part with their own Rights than they would violate the Church's Peace So did St. Gregory Nazianzene so St. Chrysostom so the African Fathers But where will he find a Mediator for Peace on any good account who did as he does who only addressed his Exhortations to the injured Persons to part with their Rights not to their Injurers to restore them How can he hope to perswade those Persons against whom he shews himself so manifestly partial His own Instances of Mediation are all against him Clemens Romanus did not perswade the injured Presbyters but the Schismaticks the Invaders of the Rights of the Presbyters to submit and quit their Interests in the Party that sided with them I know Dr. Owen as well as Mr. Hody has fallen into the same mistake to think they were Presbyters who are here exhorted by St. Clement but it is strange such Learned Men should fall into such a mistake if they had considered any thing of the design of the Epistle The persons with whom he had to deal were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 3. which are unlikely Characters of such as were Presbyters by Office They were such as are supposed to oppose the Presbyters in general n. 1.44 47 57. In opposition to them St. Clement insists on the example of Military Subordinations n. 37. Who sees not from hence that they aspired beyond the Rank and Station assigned them in the Church He insists on the Sacredness of the Sacerdotal Function n. 32 40 41 42 43 44 And he warns them particularly that Laicks were to be restrained within the Duty imposed on the Laity n. 40. implying plainly that the Schismaticks were Laicks and had nothing to do with the Sacerdotal Function He makes it such a Rivalling the Priesthood as the Israelites were guilty of when God convinced them of his own Choice of Aaron by the miraculous Blossoming of Aaron's Rod n. 43. This was evidently of persons pretending to the Sacerdotal Office when they had no Right to it He says the Apostles foresaw the same Aemulations for the sacred Office under the Gospel and secured it from being invaded by deriving it in a Succesion out of which it could not be received n 42 44. To what purpose could that Discourse tend but to restrain such Invasions in the Schismaticks he had to deal with supposing withall that they had no pretence to it on account of that Succession It is to the Headâ— of those Schismaticks that this Author speaks in this place n. 5â— Nay in the very words produced by Mr. Hody where the Apostolical Author personates them saying they would do the things enjoyned them by the Multitude so that the Flock of Christ might live in Peace with the Presbyters appointed over them So that in this very place they are opposed to the Presbyters Only the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is unhappily translated Plebs which made Dr. Owen fancy he had got a Testimony for his Lay Congregational Authority and perhaps made Mr. Hody think they were not themselves Plebeians who were to receive the Commands of the Plebs But the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no particular Rank of the Ecclesiasticks but takes in the whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Presbyters in opposition to the smallness of the number of the Schismaticks who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 47. And as little to his purpose is the other Author produced by Mr. Hody Dionisius Alexandrinus He also addresses his exhortations as became a just Mediator not to Cornelius but Novatian to the Invader not to him who had received the injury If he will therefore be true to his Authorities let him perswade his Vsurpers to do Justice to the persons injured by them They are said to excuse themselves from the odium of the Schism by pretending they were forced into their Chairs But they who had the Spirit of our Ancestors would not have given the occasion for a Schism for any violence St. Cyprian counts it as glorious to die if the Cause should require it for Vnity as for the Faith Nor do our Laws force any to accept of Bishopricks though they indeed force them who are to Elect and Consecrate them and they have had some good Precedents of those who neither would be nor have been forced into Schismatical Thrones God reward then for iâ— Had all followed their examples the Schism at least had been avoided which is that which truly Christian Souls can bear with the least patience But though the first Trial be past Mr. Hody's Dionisius has found an expedient for them yet by whâ—ch they may satisfie the World whether they deal sincerely in pretending unwilliâ—gness That is by now resigning what they tell us they were forced to· 48 May all at length return to a love of Vnity and an abhorrence of carnal Politicks May they doe it whilst God is yet ready to accept it at their hands and before it be too late for securing their own greatest Interest May they doe it whilst they have yet an opportunity of satisfying the World by not graâ—ifying Flesh and Blood in it whilst they may in some measure retrieve the Honour of Religion and prevent the Ruine of innumerable invaluable Souls for which they must otherwise be responsible May they doe it whilst it may be in their power to make some Amends for the Scandals given by them without which their very Repentance cannot be acceptable to God nor beneficial to themselves before they provoke God to farther and severer Inflictions on our beloved Countries and to deprive us of that Religion for which they pretend so great a Zeal When shall we again return to our former Communion and to our former glorious Passive Doctrines and to our much more glorious Practice of them in suffeâ—ing for a good Conscience When shall we on both sides instead of Vpbraidings and Reproaches remove all just occasion of Reproach and return to a noble Emulation who shall doe most for a solid lasting Peace by Principles We have had Principles more contributive to Vnion thaâ— all our new Projects of Comprehension without uniting Principles But what can Principles signifie if we will not be true to them if we will fall from them as often as they pinch us We desire no hard things from them as Conditions on their side for a Reconciliation We onely desire the same Terms from them on which we were united formerly the common Doctrines of not onely ours but the Catholick primitive Church the Preservation of our sacred Ecclesiastical Rights our Duty to our H. Fathers which is not their Invaders Interest to deny before a just conciliary Deprivation and the same innocent Offices in which we formerly communicated And what can they pretend to yield for Peace if they will scruple Concessions so very just and reasonable if they will not
mentions the Opposition but not the Schisms that fell out in the two Settlements of Dositheus therefore our Author takes it for granted that there were none and reasons accordingly upon that Supposition These things plainly shew that our Author did not write within any near Memory of the History written by Nicetas and therefore must be considerably later than the beginning even of the XIIIth Century 3. It will farther add to the Probability of this Observation if it be considered that our Author was a Constantinopolitane and in such a Station in the Church of Constantinople as that he could not have needed the Information of written Monuments for the Affairs of the Church of Constantinople that had been within the reach of a near Tradition This has already been observed by the English Prefacer Mr. B. and observed from hence that our Author derives the Orders of the Church he was concerned for from former Bishops of Constantinople But for this perhaps it might have been sufficient that he had been of any part of the Constantinopolitane Jurisdiction at least of a Church which owned the Patriarch of Constantinople for their more immediate Metropolitane I therefore add another Argument that will not be so easily evaded Our Author speaking of the Synodicon says it was read in the Church as every body knew This was particularly true of the particular Church of Constantinople There it was that the Tomus Vnionis that part of the Synodicon to which our Author refers was made as Anastasius Caesareensis assures us And therefore there it was that it was ordered to be read every July annually The Union it self particularly concerned breaches which had been before between Constantinopolitane Patriarchs and was therefore most proper to be read in the Patriarchal Church I add farther that the Author seems to have a constant fixed relation to that particular Church as an Officer of it and such and Officer as that it was his particular Duty to be conversant in the Histories belonging to it The subject Matter of this Discourse is Historical And the address of is not to Readers but Auditors This plainly shews that it was spoken And of these spoken Historical Discourses we have many Instances in this very same Baroccian MS. We have here the larger Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of the Arian Philostorgius which is here said to have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 We have also several Collections of History ascribed to Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulus in the same form of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius of Theodoret of Theodorus Lector This form therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to have been opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the address to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Both together seem to imply that it was rather a Speech designed for Auditors than a Writing for Readers That is that it was not committed to writing by the Author himself but by the Author only spoken it was taken from his Mouth and committed to writing by the Auditors I think there can be little reason to doubt but that the address of this Discourse to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is exactly answerable to this other form in the Works inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If so then we may reasonably judge that our Author whoever he was was in the same Office in the Church of Constantinople wherein Photius and Nicephorus were when they also pronounced and dictated the Works which are so inscribed to them and that his Office was as theirs was particularly to enquire into Ecclesiastical History and to instruct his Auditors in it As for what Mr. B collects from this address That the Tract it self was a Homily methinks the whole nature of the Subject might have sufficed to convince him He might as well have conjectured all the Collections out of Eusebius Socrates Sozomen c. to have been Homilies because they are also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But this I believe that worthy Person was not aware of who does not seem himself to have perused the MS. 4. Perhaps these Expressions may afford us some not improbable Conjectures concerning the Nature and Design of all these Historical Collections particularly Mr. Hody may be pleased to remember what himself has very well observed in his Premonition to Malela He has there observed a multitude of Historians called Rhetors and Sophists whence he well infers that those very Titles seem to have had some relation to their very Faculty of being Historians He observes farther that there was a Rhetor appropriated to the service of particular Churches Such was the Rhetor of Aenus joyned with the Ecdicus or Defensor of the same Church And it is indeed probable that all those Historians who are called Rhetors and Sophists were called so from their bearing that Office in some particular Church He has observed farther That in the Service of these Churches there were Bodies of these Rhetors and among them one who presided over the rest as Samuel over the Prophets called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Magister as that Name was in those Ages applied to Presidents of the Palatine Offices also and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 answerable also to the Secular Campidoctores in Vegetius and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These Ecclesiastical Rhetors seem to have been one part of the Clergy that were maintained by the Revenues of the Foundation mentioned frequently in the Imperial Constitutions particularly designed for this purpose of studying Ecclesiastical History The young Men therefore designed for this study were obliged to be Auditors of the Principal Rhetor who was a kind of a publick Professor of Ecclesiastical History The use of this study for the Service of the Church was to search into Precedents when any Act of publick Discipline required it and very probably into Canons also when the Case was resolvible by written Canons Both are made use of in this Discourse though the Editor has omitted all the Canons Thus this Ecclesiastical History was consulted for both Laws both the written ones and the unwritten ones which were nothing else but allowed Practice This Profession therefore being found so useful for the Service of the Church care was taken that there might always be an Ecclesiastical Nursery that might continually afford Candidates qualified to supply the Chair as often as a vacancy should fall That was by obliging the Master to a constant Duty in his Function for the Instruction of his young Students And the Duty was either to take a received Historian and to abbreviate him or to collect a multitude of Instances in a particular Case when he was consulted thereby to let the young Students understand the design of their Historical Studies But all was by word of Mouth and by way of Dictates to be committed to writing by the Auditors themselves This was the easiest way for multiplying Copies before Printing was invented And withal it
out before Application can be made to our present Case which are not yet in the least attempted It must first appear not onely that the Deprivation was indeed unjust but that the Church who deserted them and adhered to the Intruders did also think it so Yet this will hardly be made out particularly in the Case of St. Chrysostome I believe they can give no Instances of any who thought him unjustly deprived but they were Joannites and therefore separated from the Communion of his Deprivers 11. It must appear farther secondly That they thought him invalidly deprived as well as unjustly That they know very well is Our Sense of the present Case on which we lay the Stress of our Cause not onely that our Bishops are deprived for what our Laws in the true sense of the Legislators did never intend should be a Crime but also that they are deprived by a Power that can no way pretend to a Right of Spiritual Deprivation that is purely by a Lay-power without the least pretence of Ecclesiastical Censures This therefore they ought to prove That even in Case of a purely Lay-deprivation those Eastern Churches did not think fit to assert their Spiritual Liberties against the Encroachments of the Secular Magistrate But that seems more than ever their Author undertook I believe than his Cause required I am sure several of his Instances did suppose Synodical Deprivations yet if they cannot shew this all they say is utterly impertinent to our present Dispute For we our selves may say and say agreeably to our own Principles as much as their own Author says and perhaps as much as he intended if he had been living to make Application to our particular Case We do no more say than he that the Injustice of a Sentence does null or invalidate it when otherwise the Authority by which it is pronounced is valid and obliging Nor do we say that Subjects are even in Conscience free to adhere to their Bishop when the Authority by which he is deprived has not onely a Right to conclude them but to conclude him also Yet all this is consistent with the Liberty allowed by this Author of withdrawing Communion from an Heretick The Reason is this because even the Canons of the Church to go no farther now allow Subjects this Liberty to judge of their Bishop's Faith by a private Judgment of Discretion and with reference to their own particular Act of Communicating as has been shewn by their own Author himself in the latter part of his Tract ommitted by Mr. Hody 12. Yet this is not all that had been requisite for their Reasoning in this Case It ought also to appear thirdly That the Church thought her self at Liberty to deny her Adherence to an unjustly deprived Bishop even when he insisted on his own Right and challenged her Duty from her This is the actual Case of our present Bishops and of this also their whole Collection does not afford one single Example Yet this is the onely Case wherein her not adhering to him can by any Art of equal Interpretation be taken to signifie that she did not think such Adherence his due even in regard to Conscience otherwise the Non-payment of Debts alone does by no means imply a belief that they are not due It is certain the Person to whom they are due may remit them if he please and his not challenging them is often taken for an Argument that he does remit them at least that he does not challenge Payment now It is therefore no more an Argument in such a Case that the Church does not think such a Duty of Adherence to such a Bishop really due than that the Bishop himself does not think it so For it is as consistent in them with an acknowledgment of Right to defer the Payment till it be demanded as it is consistent with the Bishop's owning it for his Right that he does not as yet think fit to demand it But our Author pretends that by his Collection of Instances it appears no Bishop ever challenged his Right if the Person substituted in his own place were not an Heretick So indeed he says but thence it does by no means follow that they had no Right because they did not challenge it Nor can it be thence gathered but that it may be prudent as well as just for Successors to insist on their Right though Predecessors who thought it just did yet not think it prudent to insist on theirs The Change of Circumstances may make so great a Variety in the Case it self If it be only a Personal Injury the Mischief the Church may suffer by the Person 's defending his Right may be more than what she may suffer by permitting a single Act of Injustice to go unredressed But in our Case our Adversaries very well know the Injury is more than personal They know the old Doctrines of our Church are involved in the Injustice that is offered them They may also know that this New Doctrine of the Validity of Lay deprivations with regard to Spirituals is of intolerable mischievous consequence as granting to the Laity Principles by which they may ruine us when they please and that this pernicious Doctrine cannot well be opposed in this Case but by our Bishops insisting on their Rights And they cannot shew but when Doctrines of such consequence were concerned the Bishops not onely did but were also commended for insisting on their Rights Indeed where such Doctrines were concerned the Antients would have called the Adversaries Hereticks and in that case this Author himself allows that Bishops may judge it to be for the publick Good of the Church that they challenge their private Rights Yet after all our Author's Pretensions in his Title his Examples give a small account of the Sense of the injured Bishops themselves concerning their own Case but principally pretend to tell us what others thought concerning it How then can our Adversaries pretend to persuade our present Bishops to wave their Right upon account of this Collection of Precedents where St. Chrysostom is expresly excepted in the very Title notwithstanding what is pretended from Palladius and where withall there are so few examples observed in the Discourse it self of any who did so before them 13. Yet to let them see how far this Way of Reasoning is from proving the thing our Adversaries are concerned for we may venture to give not grant what they neither have proved nor can prove from the Instances here alleadged that the Churches had deserted their unjustly and invalidly deprived Bishops and deserted them even whilst they insisted on their Right I yet deny farther That from the naked Matters of Fact they can any way conclude even the Judgments of those Churches whom we may for a while suppose to have done what our Adversaries wish they had done For in order to the proving the Judgment of such Churches it will be farther requisite fourthly That what they did they did
find them received where nothing could have been received universally that had been an Innovation In so short a time it was hard to bring in Variations from the Primitive Rule and harder yet that all the Churches could have been unanimous in them if they had been Variations as Tertullian reasons in his Prescriptions especially when there was no Vniversal Authority received over the whole Catholick Church that could induce them to it From the Time of Trajan the Succession of our Saviour's Family failed in the Church of Jerusalem to which all particular Churches paid a deference From the Time of Hadrian there could be no pretence for that Church above others when it consisted not of Jews but Greeks and Romans What was there therefore that could make them unanimous in Variations and Variations of such Importance as this had been They had then no General Councils And the absolute Supremacy of particular Bishops in their proper Districts is by none maintained more expresly and more zealously than by St. Cyprian with particular regard to all other Powers that in later times have pretended to oblige Bishops that is to Councils and the Bishop of Rome This Catholick Communion grounded on the common Interest of all the Bishops to have all their Acts of Discipline in their particular Dictricts ratified over the whole World might have brought in other things that were consequential to these common Interests But there was nothing antecedent that can be imagined that could have brought in this Catholick Communion of those times among such a multitude of absolute and independent Societies as the Churches were then if it had not been brought in from their very first Originals And yet these Notions we were speaking of were Fundamental to that Catholick Communion it self as managed in those earlier Ages Let them therefore make their uttermost advantage of those Instances which our Adversaries call Precedents in later Ages This is however plain If they be not found inconsistent with these earlier Instances they can make nothing for their purpose If they be yet none can doubt but that later Deviations how numerous soever are to be over-ruled and concluded by the Precedents of these first and earliest Instances not so much as mentioned by their Author 23. Yet after all though we should admit that this Author had been successfull in all that he has attempted we may yet justifie our adherence to the deprived Bishops and our Separation from their opposite Altars and justifie it too by the Doctrine of their own Author For 7thly Even he permits a Separation where Orthodoxy is concerned and expresly excepts this Case from the number of those which he pretends to confute An Heretical Bishop he calls a false Bishop a false Teacher and tells us that they who separate from such do not divide the Vnity of the Church by Schism but endeavour to free the Church from Schisms and Divisions These are his own Words in the Conclusion of his Discourse I easily foresee this Charge will seem new and surprizing to our Adversaries and yet I cannot see how they can secure themselves against it St. Augustine observes that Schisms generally end in Heresie That is the natural consequence of defending it as our Adversaries do by Principles A single Act of Vndutifulness to Superiors will in course pass away with those who are guilty of it so that Posterity will not be concerned in it But when it is defended by Principles it turns into false Doctrine and Doctrine of that pernicious Consequence that the Church is obliged to take notice of it as she will be faithful to her Trust in securing her Body from the like Divisions for the future Thus the Donatists took the first occasion for their Schism from the pretended personal Faults of Caecilian and his Ordainers This whilst it was a particular Case went no farther than that particular Schism But when it turned into a general Doctrine that personal Faults were sufficient to justifie Separation then it laid a Foundation of frequent Schisms as often as any Criminals got into Places of Trust and either Evidence was wanting or themselves too powerful to be contested with Then it concerned Ecclesiastical Governours to condemn this Doctrine that encouraged even Men of Conscience to divide designedly and frequently And when that Doctrine was thus condemned by the Church and was notwithstanding maintained by the Donatists as a Principle on which they subsisted as an opposite Communion it then became a Character of a Party to maintain it and from that time forward the Donatists were reckoned among Hereticks as well as Schismaticks For this was the true Notion of Heresie in those Ages as contradistinct from Schism Both of them supposed a Division of Communion or tended to it But that Division was called Schism which only broke the Political Vnion of the Society without any difference of Principles as when Thieves or Robbers transgress their Duties without any pretence of Principles authorizing them to do so So whilst Resentment alone was the reason that made Subjects separate from the Communion of their Ecclesiastical Governours or whilst Ambition alone made any to invade the Office of his Bishop and to erect an opposite Communion this was Schism properly so called as contradistinct from Heresie But when the Schism is patronized by Doctrines and justified as well done and consistently with Conscience such Divisions besides their being Schismatical were Heretical also in the sense of the Ancients and such Doctrines as Characteristical of a distinct Communion were properly called Heresies On this account the same Doctrine of the Original Identity of Bishops and Presbyters was no Heresie in St. Hierome who notwithstanding kept Communion with the Bishops of the Jurisdictions he lived in and yet was Heresie in Aâ—erius when upon account of that pretended Identity he presumed to pay no more Duty to the Bishops of the respective Jurisdictions than he would have done to single Presbyters This is the most agreeable account of the Heresies not only in Philastrius but in other more judicious Collectors of Catalogues of Heresies And it is very agreeable with the Notion of that Term among the Philosophers from whom the Christians derived it All Notions that were proper and characteristical to particular Schools among them made Heresies not those which were received in Common among them Answerably whereunto those Differences only of Opinion made Heresies in the Church which were the Notes of different Communions not those which went no farther than Speculation 24. I am very well aware how surprizing this will be to those who upon Popular Opinions have been used to believe no Opinion Heresie that was not against Fundamentals But if they will for a while lay aside their Prejudices they will possibly find this as slightly grounded as many other Popular Opinions are The very distinction between Fundamentals and Non-Fundamentals is not that I know of ever taken notice of by the Primitive Christians either in the same
or in equivalent Terms And if a Person will needs make a breach on account of an Opinion it rather aggravates than diminishes his Guilt that the Opinion is of little consequence His own Will is more concerned in it that is his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and he is therefore more a Heretick and as Hereticks were more self-condemned Tit. 3.2 if even in his own Opinion the Matter for which he separates be not of any considerable Importance Even a Truth and a Truth that has great Evidenct of its being so may make a Heresie if it be no way conducive nor disadvantageous to the good of Souls and yet the Person who maintains it will by no means endure Communion with those who are of another Mind He might have more pretence of Zeal though mistaken if the Mistake on the Church's side did indeed concern Souls and seemed at least of dangerous consequence to them When he has not even that to pretend for himself who can impute his breaking on such accounts to any other Original than an assuming Imperiousness of Temper and a love of Contention which we generally acknowledge to be the principal Ingredients of Heresie Certain it is that such a breach for Opinions though true yet of no consequence is highly culpable and destructive to that Vnity which Christ designed for his Church and the more culpable for that very reason that the Opinion is of little consequence Yet it cannot properly be called Schism which is only a breach like those which fall out frequently in secular Affairs when Men fall into Parties on account of a Temper ungovernable or ambitious without any proper difference of Opinion and Doctrine And it being no Schism what can we call it in the Discipline of the Church if it be not Heresie 25. These Opinions therefore which are not otherwise Heretical on account of the Nature of the Opinions themselves do then begin to be Heretical when they begin to be characteristical of distinct Communions And that they do not only when Men designedly separate from others on that very account because they are not of the same Opinions but also when they venture on such Practices on account of their singular Opinions wherein others cannot communicate with them for that very reason because they cannot join with them in those their singular Opinions Then plainly the differing in such Opinions makes a difference of Communion unavoidable and therefore the Opinions themselves in such a Case as this is are Signals of different Communions which will come under the charge of Heresie as contradistinct from Schism in the Notion now described of the Primitive Church Thus had St. Hierome proceeded as far as Aerius in the Practice of his Opinion concerning the Original Identity of Bishops and Presbyters and had thereupon broken himself off from his Duty to the Bishop of the Diocese and by that means either made or countenanced a Schism which he had never countenanced but on account of this Doctrine of his which he held in Common with the Aërians that Doctrine had then been Heresie in him as well as the Aërians So also Opinions do then begin to be Treasonable when they are actually productive of Treasonable Actions Thus Latitudinarian Opinions in the Church do always weaken or dissolve the Obligation in Conscience to maintain the Church as a Society in a time of Persecution from the Civil Magistrate yet till that Case fall out and when Interest lyes on the Church's side they often still keep one Communion who are for such Opinions and may continue in it while there are any other Inducements to keep them in it besides those of Conscience Only it may perhaps be fit to be considered whether it be prudent to trust such Persons with the Management of the Government of the Church who have no Obligation of Principles or Conscience to maintain it as an independent Society or to suffer for it that is indeed who are never likely to maintain it in that very Case which was most in our Saviour's and the Apostles vâ—ew that is of a Persecution But when they actually divide that Communion which they were never obliged in Conscience to maintain if they took the utmost liberty their Latitudinarian Principles would afford them and when their lax Principles are the very grounds of their dividing the Communion without any remorse of Conscience for doing so when they are hereby emboldned to do those things which inevitably cause a breach from those who cannot follow them in these very Principles This is the Case wherein these Principles are Characters of a distinct Communion and therefore by the Reasoning now mentioned become Heretical Especially the Principles being withal false not only in the Opinion of those from whom they have divided themselves but also of our earliest purest Ancestors even those of the Apostolical Age it self 26. Yet I deny not but that in this Case of Heresie there is also regard to be had to the momentousness of the Opinion it self Whoever sets up or abets a Communion opposite to that of the Church on account of Opinions is as I have shewn in the Judgment of the Primitive Church an Heretick and is the more not the less so if the Opinions be also frivolous But for such Opinions the Church would never have driven him out of her own Communion if himself had been pleased to have continued in it Her Judiciary Censures ought noâ—doubt to be confined to Opinions Fundamental and of great Importance especially if an internal Assent be required and that under pain of Excommunication Yet let not our Adversaries flatter themselves as if they were secure from the charge even of this Notion of Heresie as it signifies an erring even in Fundamentals also I know very well Men have hitherto considered the Church rather as a Sect than as a Society and have therefore usually had no regard to the Doctrines Fundamental to it as a Society if they did not withal concern it as a Sect and Antecedently to its being a Society But there seems very little Reason for their doing so if they will be pleased impartially to reflect on it It is very true its Notion as a Sect is antecedent to its being a Society because it is a Society into which Men find themselves obliged to enter by the Doctrines they must be supposed to believe if they own it as a Sect. But even thence it appears that the Doctrines which concern it as a Sect do withal make it necessary it should be a Society These two Considerations therefore are by no means to be separated Nay it hence appears that the Doctrines constituting it as a Sect do also by a near and unavoidable and evident Consequence make it a Society Thus therefore the Fundamentals of its being a Society will be included in that System of Doctrines which concern it as a Sect. And then what Matter is it that one of these Notions is antecedent and the other consequent
scandalous this Case of breaking Faith was in the antient Cases of Arsacius of Constantinople and Flavianus of Antioch not onely to discredit their Persons but to justifie a Separation from them though I do not think that Case alone sufficient to justifie it where the Scandal was not injurious to a better Right than that of him who was in possession But in the Case before us I cannot imagine what they can pretend to avoid this Canon I do not urge these Canons as Laws particularly obliging us by whom they were never particularly and explicitly received Yet if I did urge them as obliging without explicite Reception perhaps the particular Reasonableness of the Canons themselves would bear me out in it The Law of Nations obliges all particular civil Nations though it be not taken into their Codes of written Laws and therefore not ratified by express Reception The Reasonableness of the Things themselves and their Necessity for Maintaining Correspondence are alone sufficient to oblige all Nations who will correspond with others and correspond justly So the Case is here The securing Subordinations already received and settled are so much the Interests of all Churches and these Expedients are so manifestly necessary for maintaining those Subordinations that they do as little need explicite reception to make them obligatory in particular Churches as the Laws of Nations do to make them also obligatory to particular Nations For my present Design it 's sufficient that these Canons do at least express the Sense of the Eastern Church and of this Collector who produces and owns them as Authorities Hence at least it follows that that Church and this Collector owned no Validity in Deprivations of Bishops that were not synodical when without this they account all refusals of Duty schismatical whatever other Deprivations could be pretended in favour of such Refusals How was it then possible for this Collector to plead Precedents for even excusing Duty on such Deprivations which he did not think sufficient to excuse them How could he call Facts of this kind Precedents and reason from them to a Church which had by her Rules and Canons so expresly condemned them 10. But Mr. Hody did not think this latter part where the Canons are to belong to the Discourse published by him Nor will I charge him with any designed Disingenuity in suppressing them though they make so manifestly against the Cause espoused by him I onely desire that his Omission may not prejudice them who shall be pleased again to consult the MS. The Thing it self gives no occasion that I can see for suspecting it to belong to any other Author The Hand is manifestly the same with that of the Part already published and this Hand is manifestly different from those which are either before or after It follows also without any new Title without any Footsteps of any that had once been legible but now defaced and grown illegible without any the least convenient distance left for a Title if the Author had intended one But these things are not unusual with the unskilfull Librarians where notwithstanding the Works themselves so injudicially connected are very different I grant it nor would I insist on these things if there were any great Evidence in the Matter itself to the contrary but unless we will allow our selves a liberty of breaking off arbitrarily and unaccountably and leaving out whatever displeases us in Manuscripts we must at least allow these things to pass for Presumptions where there is no contrary Evidence And that is all that need be granted us in this matter The subject Matter of this Appendix is so far from affording Arguments for suspecting it as part of another Work that it adds rather farther Evidence that it was really from the same Author and with the same Design The Canons are to the same purpose of opposing the Schisms now mentioned as well as the Historical Precedents Both of them together do clear the sense of the Church as well from her written Laws in Words as from her unwritten ones of Custome and matter of Fact And what could be more proper than to join these two together Indeed the Facts alone would not be so argumentative without the Canons for they are not bare Facts but approved Facts that are fit to be admitted as Precedents And what Facts are approved by the Church we can most securely judge by their conformity to her written Laws Besides this was the Custome of the Ecclesiastical Rhetors to give in their Evidences of both kinds concerning the Questions wherein they were consulted So Troilus the Sophist mentions a Canon as well as Examples relating to the Case of Translations if he were the Author of that Collection made use of by his Disciple Socrates as I believe he was So here in the same MS. in the Collection fitted to the Case of Germanus of Adrianople intruded into the Throne of Arsenius besides the Collection of Troilus there are added many more Instances and express Testimonies out of the Decretals of the Popes Callistus and Anteros which in the Discipline of that Age were equivalent to Canons It should seem that during the time the Latines possessed Constantinople some Latinizing Greek translated Isidore Mercator's Forgeries which from that time were taken for Law in the Greek Church as they had formerly been in the Latine This is I think the first time we find them mentioned by the Greeks We do not find that their Canonists who wrote a little before ever take any notice of them not Zonaras nor Alexius Aristenus nor Balsamon yet Balsamon does mention the Donation of Constantine which I believe was translated from the same Collection of Isidore's Forgeries a sign that even then the Greeks began to look into them But methinks the latter end of the Canons of our Appendix should put this Matter out of doubt There it is explained and limited what had been so often inculcated in the former Discourse concerning the Liberty which had been allowed of Separating in the excepted Case of Heresie Our Author here produced his Authority for what he had said as to that Case that his Auditors might understand that in a Case of so great importance he did not presume to give them any singular Opinions of his own but that he instructed them in the received and allowed Doctrine of the Church of Constantinople to which they were all related Withall he thereby warned them of the Cautions necessary in the Practice of that Doctrine that they might not break the Peace of their Church in the Case then proposed Who sees not how naturally this coheres with the former part of his Discourse It is indeed so natural that I once thought them to be the Author 's own Words till I was convinced of my Mistake by comparing them with the Canon itself from whence he took them But it was somewhat better for his purpose that he should express his Sense in this matter rather in his Church's Words than
So far were even Princes in that Age from pretending any Right to intermeddle in such matters without the Leave nay without the Authority of the Church to warrant them in it and so little were they then ashamed to own themselves Executioners of the Church's Canons in Affairs properly relating to the Church's Right None who is in earnest with Religion can in the least doubt but that the interests of Religion are incomparably both Nobler and Greater than the interests of any Worldly Politicks Even the Secular Magistate himself cannot deny but that his Soul which is benefitted by promoting the interests of Religion is of more importance even to him than his Secular Empire And why then should poor Mortals be ashamed to own their obligation to make their Worldly Power subservient to ends so undeniably Nobler and Greater than those of their Worldly Power But so trifling are the Reasonings of those who call this being Priest-ridden when they are examined seriously that it is no wonder they should look upon it as a principal Art of recommending them by Bantering and avoiding Seriousness 38. Our Author's next instance is in the next and last Deprivation of Photius which he tells us was by Leo Sapiens in favour of his own Brother Stephanus substituted in his stead Yet the Successor being also Orthothodox he observed that no Schism followed upon it And indeed we do not find any matter for a Synodical accusation objected to Photius by the Prince himself who is said to have deprived him not any of those immoral practices wherewith he had been formerly upbraided by his exasperated Adversaries Much less does any Synod appear that gave judgment against him upon such allegations nor could he pretend as his Father Basile had done that he only executed a former Synodical Deprivation for fear of the Anathemâ— he might incur if he did not do so Photius had now no Rival who could pretend a better Tittle in favour of whom those Synodical determinations had been made And he had since been restored in a General Synod later than that which had deprived him and wherein all the defects were supplied which had been objected formerly Here he had the Suffrages of the Eastern Patriarchs Not only so but even of the Papal See it self which had before been most implacable against him I know Baronius fancies that there was afterwards a breach between Pope John and him Nor is it unlikely that John did indeed resent the retaining Bulgaria from him the recovering of which was the principal inducement which had brought him to that condescendence This I take to have been the reserved Case when he afterwards disowns his confirming what his Legates had done if they had in any thing gone beyond the Orders he had given them Nor is it unlikely also but that on occasion of that resentment he might use some threats and hard expressions that might have been so interpreted by the Authors that gave Baronius occasion for this conjecture But there is no likelihood at all that those resentments ever proceeded so far as an open rupture otherwise we should certainly have had some mention of it in so many following Epistles written by John himself afterwards Whatever he thought he seems at that time to have thought it seasonable to suppress his resentments as finding himself opposed by a greater interest than that of Photius Photius therefore does not indeed seem to have been deprived Synodically the reason given for it is That Leo resented what Santabarenus had done against him in his Father's time in making a difference between them and thought Photius the principal hindrance that kept him from his designs against Santabarenus This was a reason in State likely enough to have been the occasion why Leo would endeavour to get Photius deprived But it was not a reason likely to have been owned openly and to have been produced before a Judicatory He could hardly for shame have owned a resentment for things so long past much less could he have charged Photius with favouring Santabarenus when Santabarenus himself had not yet received an open Trial. However it is certain that the Emperor himself was the cause that the place was vacated and in this Historians agree only they do not tells whether it were with his own consent though forced to it by the Emperor or whether the Emperor pretended to do it by his own Authority without any consent of Photius But what the Historians have not informed us of that his great Adversary Pope Stephen the Fourth has and that from the Letter of the Emperor himself who is said to have deprived him By that Letter it appears that the Emperor did not so much as pretend Force on his own part but a voluntary Resignation on the part of Photius So that as yet we have not one instance that ever any Lay-Power did ever pretend to a Power of depriving Bishops as to their Spiritual Authority though we could not have known it in this case had it not been for this occasional mention of it by Pope Stephen The Case may therefore have probably been the same in other examples where we read of Depositions by Emperors where we are not so happy to light on a particular account of them Here there are other circumstances that make it probable that this Cession was voluntary Photius was treated very respectfully even after his Deprivation as appears in the Trial of Santabarenus which would not have been if he had stood out to the utmost so it was this willingness of his Cession that hindered Pope Stephen also from proceeding to his designed severities against him Besides Stephanus his Successor had been his Pupil and Educated under him and therefore unlikely to have accepted of his Office without his leave nor do we find that he ever afterwards endeavoured again to get into it though Stephanus did not long enjoy it And therefore going off willingly he had thence-forward no pretence to disturb his Successors the Schism had been his not theirs if he had gone back from his own agreement and either resumed his Throne or withdrawn the Peoples Duty which had been already quitted by him 39. The next Example is in Nicholas deprived by the same Prince Leo Sapiens for opposing his fourth Marriage Against him Euthymius was set up yet so as our Author says that neither Nicholas himself withdrew from his Communion nor taught the People to do so Nay so that when he was restored to his Throne by Alexander the Brother of Leo he did not so much as question the Orders given by Euthymius because the persons ordained were Orthodox and the person who Ordained them was himself also Orthodox So our Author The time of this Ejection of Nicholas is somewhat intricate It could hardly have been where Baronius places it in the year 901. The surest grounds we have for discovering it is from the Age of Constantine Porphyrogennetus It is certain he was born before his
restore the old Terms which may be done without any thing that can properly be called Concession These things if they will grant us we shall all return into their Communion with Joy and they vvill also have reason to partake in our Joy for our having vindicated their sacred Rights against future Encroachments But the least we can ask or they can grant is to gratifie us in the matter of our present Dispute That they vvill not invade nor maintain injurious Possessions that they vvill not by doing so cut themselves off by their ovvn Act from Communion with us The End of the Second PART The CANONS in the Baroccian Manuscript omitted by Mr. Hody 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The 31 Canon of the holy Apostles instead of the 32. If any Presbyter contemning his own Bishop shall hold a separate Meeting and erect an opposite Altar having nothing wherewith to charge the Bp. in Matters of Piety and Justice let him be deposed as an ambitious Affector of Government for he is an Vsurper So also as many of the Clergy as shalt join with him shall be deposed and the Laicks excommunicated but all this after the 1st 2d and 3d Admonition of the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The 6 th Canon of the Synod of Gangra If any Man hold a private Meeting out of the Church and despising the Church shall presume to perform the Offices of the Church the officiating Presbyter not being thereunto licensed by the Bishop let him be anathema 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The 5 th Canon of the Synod of Antioch If any Presbyter or Deacon despising his own Bp. hath withdrawn himself from the Church and set up an Altar in a private Meeting and shall disobey the Admonitions of the Bp. and will not be persuaded by him nor submit to him exhorting him again and again he is absolutely to be deposed and ought no longer to he treated as a curable Person neither as one who can retain his Honor and if he shall persevere to make Tumults and Disturbances in the Church he is to be turned over as a seditious Person to the secular Power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The 15 th Canon of the same Synod If any Bishop accused of any Crimes be condemned by all the Bishops of the Province who have all with one accord denounced the same Sentence against him such a one by no means ought to be judged again by others but the concordâ—nt Sentence of the Provincial Bishops ought to remain firm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The 10 th Canon of the Synod of Carthage If any Presbyter being puffed up against his own Bp. shall make a Schism let him be anathema 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The 13 th Can. of the Synod of Constantinople The Devil having sown the Seeds of heretical Tares in the Church of Christ and seeing them cut up by the Sword of the Spirit hath betaken to himself a new way and method viz. to divide the Church by the Madness of Schismaticks But the holy Synod being also willing to obviate this Strategem of his has decreed as follows If any Presbyter or Deacon under pretence of accusing his own Bp. of any Crimes shall presume to withdraw from his Communion and not mention 〈…〉 in the holy Prayers of the Liturgy Clergymen not excusable for appearing in a Cause so destructive of the Interest of Religion in general and of their own Function in particular without Reasons very evident and convincing The Author of this Manuscript too low to pass for an Evidence of the Facts mentioned by him He knew nothing of the later part of the History of Nicetas Choniates relating to Constantinople Which yet he must have known as a publick Officer of the Church of Cp. if he had liv'd near him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 25. Anastas de Jejux Deipar p. 435. Tom. 3. Coteler Mon. Gr. Eccl. fol. 243. fol. 212 225 230. The use of the publick Ecclesiastical Rhâ—tor This Office very antient in the Church of Cp. perhaps from the first Foundation of it by Constantine the Great L. V. c. 22. Vid. etiam Sozom. l. 7. c. 19. L. VII c. 36. L. VII c. 37. This Discourse seems to have been written by the Ecclesiastical Rhetor of the Church of Cp. then in Office when the Schism happened that occasioned it Not by Nicephorus Callisius Coteler Nâ—t ad 3 Vol. Mon. Gr. Eccl. p. 645. Niceph. H. E. xvi 19 20 25 26 32. Ibid. 35. Ad finèm Cap. 1. L. 1. Nicephorâ— This Author no competent Witness of the Matters mentioned by him Our Adversaries way of Reasoning in this Case is neither conscientious not prudent See the instances produced by the Author of the Vnreasonableness of a New Separation upon the Account of the Oaths 1. Non-adherence to unjustly deprived Bishops will signify nothing to our present Case unless the Persons who did not adhere to them did believe them unjustly depriv'd 2. Nor unless they did believe them invalidly deprived that is by an incompetent Judicatory as well as unjustly 3. Nor unless the Bishops so deprived did insist on their Right and challenge Duty as ours do 4. Nor unless such Non-adherence was thought justifiable by Principles and with regard to Conscience 5. Nor is it easie to gather Principles from Non-actions Such are not chalenging Right on the Bishops part or not adhering to them on the Subjects part 6. Nor do the Instances here produced prove the Sense of the Catholick Church but of the Greek especially of the Constantinopolitane Church Nor even of that Church in the first and earliest Ages The Doctrine of the Catholick Church in the earliest Ages may for what appears from this Collection be on our side and indeed is so 1st The whole Church then owned noâ— Power in the secular Magistrate for depriving Bishops as to Spirituals not even as to their particular Districts Thence it follows 2dly that Antibiâ—hops consecrated in Districts no other way 〈◊〉 than by the Power of the secular Magistrate are by the Principles of that earliest Catholick Church no Bishops at all but divided from the Church * Epist. 57. ad Antonianum in the Oxon Edition of St. Cyprian And 3dly that all who profess themselves one with Antibishops so divided from the Church were in consequence to the same Principles themselves divided also St. Cypr. Epist. 43 Edit Oxon. And 4thly that all who were United with Novatian and by consequence divided from the Church of the Roman District were in the Discipline of that early Age looked upon as themselves divided also from the Catholick Church And 5ly that all who were on these Principles thought divided from the visible communion of the Catholick Church were also on the same Principles thought deprived of all the Invisible benefits of Church Communion Vid. St. Cyp. de